Once again, a holiday disaster for our young people: houseparties and ministry opportunities dashed by yet another corona scare.
Instead, as one church did last holidays, time for a few 'days in'.
You could do three over the next three week, a full day together on the church premises learning, discussing, and recreating together, with intensives on, say, apologetics, society and its discontents, the gospel and its aberations (I think of Mormons and JWs).
Easy.
I mean 'church' as the body of Christ, the people of God, not church as the building down the road, or the organisation that administers church gatherings.
Here's one view. from an ex-Jehovah's Witness.
With the Covid-19 scare prevailing, we have church differently from normal...the normal of two millennia of history!
No singing. The band is a performance unit, rather than a ministry unit. One Bible-reading, one prayer, one sermon.
So, how could we do it to keep the congregation (the church) involved?
Return to responsive readings. A responsive psalm, and the ol' evensong responses brought up to date.
We could speak the words to songs, rather than 'sing', I understand singing is not allowed. I wonder at the epidemiology behind this, but there you are. Church organisers buckled like a wax doll in a spotlight.
We could chant. Chanting is not singing, surely? Or we could hum the songs, maybe sing sotto voce.
And what about a formal choir? It could comprise whoever was 'on' on the day: signified by whoever turned up. Spaced groups of about 5 at five mutually distant points around the auditorium and 25 people singing. Then change choirs for the next song or hymn (and please, no more Bethel or Hillsong efforts). Just remember, singing is instructed by the Apostles. It is not a 'nice to have'; it is an inherent part of our Christian life.
A few people could do prayers: an intro, the main one, and a dismissal prayer or benediction. Or we could do the litany to involve everyone. This might introduce some dignity into the end of the service rather than the trite 'that's all folks' we too often get...for the meeting of the people of God with his Spirit present? Yeek!
And the band. Always good, but 'leaders'?
We were told the band would 'lead us in song'.
No! Bands, choirs, precentors, organists...do not 'lead us'. They minister or serve we the congregation, or any 'doing' words other than 'lead' would work. May be 'let's now sing' or 'let's listen to the band sing for us', etc. But please, they are not a 'leader' or an entertainment troupe, for that matter; although high quality is to be striven for.
Let's get the idea of 'service' back into church life and expunge the worldly idea of 'leadership' with its overtones of superiority, prestige and power, fetching unfortunate images of generals in the military, CEOs in business and party leaders in politics, all with reference to power and influence and preening in the spotlight (the same spotlight that melt's wax dolls, presumably).
Links to some J. P. Moreland talks on philosophical theology and related areas.
LGWAYM - Q and A
Nature and Problems with Scientific Naturalism
Also see here for some comments
Real Answers to Tough Questions
Moreland at AMP Conference (Worldview)
BTW, I wouldn't endorse the Reasons to Believe organisation, Hugh Ross has a bizarre view of Hebrew and Biblical exegesis.
The Dangerous Ideology of Scientism
One of the best pieces I've encountered on dealing with an advocate of homosexual practice who accuses one of being some sort of mental defective: yep, by Greg Koukl. It's at the 28 minute mark (and, mind you, I disagree with his Calvinistic aspects, just for the record).
I'd tackle it a little differently at the start:
The questioner challenges you about Leviticus 20:13 as the basis of Christian 'homophobia'.
I respond: 'are you an ancient Jew?'...answer is 'no', I continue 'you've nothing to worry about then, so what's the problem?'
Some response...then 'I'd be more concerned about Paul the Christian messenger's letter to his friends in Rome (Romans 1:18-32)'
Then pick up Koukl's response.
Now, remember, this is only if the issue comes up in this context. Our job is not to judge individuals, it's to make disciples. I Cor 5:9-13 applies.
The rebuttal of the use of Leviticus is strategically there to open a discussion of what the Bible is (the collection of God's interactions with his people through history to prepare the way for Messiah) and is not (a collection of ahistorical and disconnected aphorisic instructions about behaviour...which the Koran is).
We Christians often feel the need to defend our convictions against weak and baseless attacks by non-believers. This is usually unnecessary.
If an unbeliever sets a position, or rejects ours, it's up to them to defend their position.
A couple of podcasts from Greg Koukl set the scene.
Clear thinking 1 and clear thinking 2.
Enjoy!
Oh, and a post from Alan Shlemon: Atheism's empty soul.
